An Interpretation of the History of Brazilian Education: The Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies (1949)

ABSTRACT

This article examines the conception of the history of education presented in the Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros (1949), a work organized by Rubens Borba de Moraes and William Berrien, aimed at providing an introductory guide to national knowledge and culture. The analysis focuses on the entry “Education,” written by Raul Briquet and Lourenço Filho, whose interpretations of Brazil’s educational trajectory reflect the intellectual and institutional debates of the period. Briquet emphasizes the role of the Jesuits in colonial education and criticizes the metropolis’s negligence, while Lourenço Filho, aligned with the educational reforms of the Estado Novo, highlights the importance of the bureaucratic-administrative organization of education in the country’s modernization. By situating the Manual within the context of the renewal of the human sciences in Brazil and the consolidation of an interpretative approach to the history of education, this study seeks to contribute to the understanding of knowledge production in education, the movements of educational historiography, and the editorial and institutional dynamics of the 1940s.

Keywords:
Brazilian studies; History and historiography of education; Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies; Raul Briquet; Lourenço Filho

RESUMO

Este artigo examina a concepção de história da educação presente no Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros (1949), obra organizada por Rubens Borba de Moraes e William Berrien, com o objetivo de fornecer um guia introdutório ao conhecimento e à cultura nacionais. A análise se concentra no verbete “Educação”, escrito por Raul Briquet e Lourenço Filho, cujas interpretações sobre a trajetória educacional brasileira refletem debates intelectuais e institucionais do período. Briquet enfatiza o papel dos jesuítas na educação colonial e critica a negligência da metrópole, enquanto Lourenço Filho, alinhado às reformas educacionais do Estado Novo, destaca a importância da organização burocrático-administrativa do ensino na modernização do país. Ao situar o Manual no contexto da renovação das ciências humanas no Brasil e na consolidação de um veio interpretativo sobre a história da educação, este estudo visa contribuir para a compreensão da produção do conhecimento em educação, dos movimentos realizados pela historiografia educacional e das dinâmicas editoriais e institucionais da década de 1940.

Palavras-chave:
Estudos brasileiros; História e historiografia da educação; Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros; Raul Briquet; Lourenço Filho

Introduction

This undertaking aims to explore certain aspects of the conception of the history of education present in a late-1940s publication entitled Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies, intended to provide an introductory guide to the study of national knowledge and culture. Organized by professors Rubens Borba de Moraes (then deputy director of library services at the UN) and William Berrien (from Harvard University), the Manual originated from an initiative by the Institute of Latin American Studies, based in the United States. It succeeded in bringing together renowned Brazilian and international scholars, each contributing their expertise to cover, within their specialty, a broad panorama of the knowledge produced up to that time about Brazil.

In a first step, the aim is to situate the Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies within the broader movement to comprehend the knowledge produced in the country during a historical period in which university-level research and academic output were becoming consolidated, also analyzing the significance of publishing the compendium for the internationalization of Brazilian academic production. In a second step, attention will be given to the regularities and priorities in the selection and analysis of the history of Brazilian education as presented in the “Education” entry, authored by professors Raul Briquet and Manuel Bergström Lourenço Filho, both signatories of the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education (1932).

The Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies

The Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies stands as a landmark in the documentation and systematization of knowledge about Brazil in the mid-twentieth century. Released in 1949, the Manual was designed as a detailed repository of the principal works on the country, encompassing a wide range of fields of knowledge and consolidating itself as a relevant source for both national and foreign researchers. It was published in 1949 by Gráfica Editora Souza, based in Rio de Janeiro. The work presents a compilation of approximately 6,000 titles related to Brazil, covering areas such as art, law, education, ethnology, philology, folklore, history, literature, general reference works, and sociology. With more than 900 pages in its original publication, the Manual includes an author index in the appendix to facilitate consultation. It was reissued in 1998 by the Federal Senate (the version used for the production of the present article) and then divided into two volumes, currently available in e-book format and freely accessible via the Federal Senate Library portal.

The authors

The conceptualization and organization were entrusted to Rubens Borba de Moraes (1899-1986) and William Berrien (1902-1966). The first was a distinguished Brazilian librarian, bibliophile, bibliographer, historian, and researcher, born on January 23, 1899, in Araraquara, and deceased in Bragança Paulista in 1986 (Antunes, 2017, p. 11). In 1933, he participated with Ciro Berlink, Antonio Carlos Couto de Barros, Tacito de Almeida, and Sergio Milliet in the creation of the Free School of Sociology and Politics of São Paulo. He was also involved in the conception and realization of the Department of Culture in the municipality of São Paulo (1935), subsequently assuming the directorship of the Division of Libraries within this department (Antunes, 2017, p. 11). With regard specifically to library science, Borba de Moraes is recognized for his contribution to the organization and dissemination of library systems as well as knowledge about Brazil. His professional trajectory encompassed important positions both in Brazil and abroad, playing a significant role in the institutionalization of libraries and the appreciation of bibliography as a crucial tool for academic research. This is evidenced by information found on the title page of the two volumes republished in 1998, which attests that, in 1949, he held the position of Deputy Director of Library Services at the UN. Slightly before this period, he participated in the very creation of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), and throughout the 1930s and 1940s, he served as director of the Municipal Library of São Paulo, now known as the Mário de Andrade Library, where he implemented reforms that substantially expanded access to reading and knowledge. Subsequently, he became director of the National Library in Rio de Janeiro, a position he held from 1945 to 1947. During his tenure, he was dedicated to expanding the collection and improving the services provided by the institution.

William Berrien, born in Albany, New York, and deceased in 1966 in San Francisco, California, was an educator, author, and proponent of the New School movement in the United States, being an advocate of the Montessori approach and the ideas of John Dewey. In addition to his work as a teacher and author, he participated in various educational commissions, contributing to the development of educational policies in his home country. Like Moraes, Berrien maintained a significant relationship with UNESCO. Throughout his career, he was involved in several initiatives and projects aligned with UNESCO’s objectives, especially regarding education and the promotion of knowledge. The educator participated in international conferences and seminars organized by UNESCO, an institution whose creation coincides temporally with a strong appeal for the democratization and/or redemocratization of many countries. It should be emphasized that this characteristic marks the “phase” of the New School movement in different countries, and thus, their contributions are aligned with UNESCO’s declared mission to promote peace and international security through education. Moreover, in addition to his work at UNESCO, William Berrien’s distinguished academic career at Harvard University-where he made significant contributions to Latin American studies-brought him into close collaboration with Rubens Borba de Moraes, a key factor in making the publication of the Manual possible. This volume was well received by academic libraries in the United States, quickly establishing itself as one of the principal bibliographic guides for Brazilian studies. Prestigious universities such as Harvard, Columbia, and UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) adopted it as a reference in the courses offered by their departments of History, Literature, and Social Sciences. Furthermore, the compendium helped solidify Brazil as a relevant field of study within Latin American Studies programs, which were rapidly expanding across the United States in the post-World War II period.

The work

The structure of the work reveals a meticulous effort to organize the knowledge available about Brazil up to its publication. The division by fields of knowledge reflects the organizers’ concern with providing a comprehensive and systematic overview of the main academic contributions. Furthermore, the methodology adopted for the selection of works demonstrates an analytical rigor that distinguished the Manual from simple bibliographic compendia, as it established a critical curation of references and provided commentary on the content, relevance, and academic impact of each cited work.

Regarding its sections, the Manual was divided by the organizers into twelve areas or entries (some of which contain further subdivisions). At the end of each entry, there is a critical and selective bibliography of items related to the corresponding field of knowledge. Below is the list of intellectuals responsible for this undertaking: Art - Robert Smith; Law - Sílvio Portugal; Education - Raul Briquet and Lourenço Filho; Ethnology - Herbert Baldus; Philology - José Matoso Câmara Jr.; Folklore - Mário de Andrade; Geography - Pierre Monbeig and Paulo Sawaya (Note on Brazilian zoogeography); History - Rubens Borba de Moraes (General Works, Bibliography and Voyages), Alice Canabrava (General Works, Bibliography and Bandeiras), Sérgio Buarque de Holanda (Colonial Period), Otávio Tarquínio de Souza (Independence, First Reign and Regency), Caio Prado Jr. (Second Reign and Special Topics), Gilberto Freyre (Republic), José Honório Rodrigues (The Dutch in Brazil); Literature - William Berrien, Astrojildo Pereira (Thinkers, Critics and Essayists), Francisco de Assis Barbosa (Novels, Short Stories, Novellas), Manuel Bandeira (Poetry); Music - Luís Heitor Correia de Azevedo; Sociology - Donald Pierson; Theater - Leo Kirschenbaum.

Between the original idea and the actual publication of the Manual, a decade elapsed - a delay largely caused by the outbreak of the Second World War. Several researchers found themselves unable to maintain international exchanges due to the political alignment of their countries of origin or the countries in which they resided as a result of their research and teaching activities. This situation resulted in a substantial setback for international cooperation, constituting a significant challenge for the Manual’s organizers. Initially scheduled for completion in 1943, the publication timeline of the Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies necessarily had to be revised. Consequently, there was a chronological discrepancy in the dating of the various entries, as some researchers - having completed their essays by the original deadline - addressed their respective themes up to the year 1942, while other entries, owing to the extended publication deadline, had the opportunity to update their contributions until 1945.

An argument put forth by the organizers to convey the pioneering nature of the work refers to the use of “modern bibliographic principles” in the organization of the entries. According to them, in the preparation of the work:

(...) procurou-se o máximo de uniformidade para os capítulos (...) As normas seguidas na indexação dos nomes próprios são as estabelecidas nos últimos anos por especialistas em Biblioteconomia no Brasil (Biblioteca Municipal de São Paulo) (...) Tal medida poderá desconcertar o leitor, no Brasil e fora dele, acostumado à rotina, que persistia no assunto por mais de um século (Moraes; Berrien, 1998, p. 13).¹

Another argument can be observed in the following passage:

Desejamos sinceramente uma crítica livre sobre a nossa iniciativa de produzir um guia geral de estudos brasileiros, contendo sugestões para um futuro trabalho, pois, sabemos perfeitamente que o Manual está longe de se encontrar isento das imperfeições que caracterizam, aliás, os primeiros empreendimentos, embora tenha sido nosso desejo apresentar uma introdução completa e segura no campo dos estudos brasileiros. (...) Seus autores (os autores que se dispuserem a dar continuidade às pesquisas estampadas no compêndio de 1949) terão, assim, no presente Manual, um ponto de partida, aproveitando as críticas por ele sugeridas (Moraes; Berrien, 1998, p. 18)².

The entry “Education”

The entry “Education,” which is examined in this study, was written by two Brazilian researchers: Raul Briquet, responsible for the section about education during the colonial and imperial periods, and Lourenço Filho, who addressed the republican era. Throughout their academic careers, Briquet and Lourenço Filho were involved in joint initiatives, such as the founding of the Brazilian Psychoanalysis Society and their endorsement of the “Manifesto dos Pioneiros da Escola Nova”, although, especially after the Estado Novo period, their paths tended to diverge. Characterized by the organizers, as highlighted earlier, as a kind of foundational work - a “starting point” - the Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies offers an interpretation of the historical educational process in the country. This interpretation is symptomatic, particularly when one considers what Fernando de Azevedo published only a few years prior in his work A Cultura Brasileira, a book that largely informed - and, to some extent still inform - the writing of the history of Brazilian education. Although the Manual originated from a transnational initiative, it is situated within a period of renewal in the human and social sciences in Brazil, which intensified during the 1930s with the increasing institutionalization of spaces for intellectual engagement. Thus, it presents a renewed perspective on educational themes, undertaken by researchers aligned with these “new times” who, especially in the case of Lourenço Filho, occupied significant positions within the bureaucratic-administrative structure.

Raul Briquet, responsible for the colonial period as well as the First and Second Reigns, based his considerations regarding the pre-independence phase of Brazil largely on a work by Manuel Duarte Moreira de Azevedo entitled “A instrução pública nos tempos coloniais do Brasil” (Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, v. 55, 2nd part, p. 141-158, 1892). According to Briquet, this is perhaps the most consulted source on the Brazilian colonial period. Aligning himself with Moreira de Azevedo’s conclusions, Briquet considers that Azevedo’s work, “fully meeting the requirements for a comprehensive assessment of public education in the colonial period, highlights the neglect of the metropolis regarding the spiritual life of Brazil”³. Briquet also follows Moreira de Azevedo in extolling the educational work carried out by the Jesuits during their period of activity in Portuguese America. This perspective, as is well known, is also found in A Cultura Brasileira, authored by Fernando de Azevedo. Although published in 1943, the main features of Fernando de Azevedo’s work had been taking shape for at least two decades. Although the present text does not primarily investigate this issue, it is inevitable to question: what possible connections exist between the interpretative framework concerning the historical-educational process in Brazil found in Fernando de Azevedo’s renowned study and the essay by Raul Briquet included in the Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies? It is certain that this same essay would later be reproduced, with the addition of the section addressing the republican period, in a work by Briquet published in 1946 (see bibliographic references).

A remarkable example of the valorization of Jesuit educational work can be seen in the characterization of the actions of one of the most renowned members of the Society of Jesus: Anchieta. There is, in fact, a kind of consecration of the trajectory of the Jesuit priest. For Briquet, “the soul of catechesis in São Paulo was Anchieta, unsurpassed in the zeal of an apostle and as a schoolmaster”⁴.

Although, when referring to the creation of the College of Bahia, Briquet alludes to the term “college” not in the sense of a strictly structured secondary educational institution with a fixed curriculum and administration, but rather as a kind of residence or house in which the order’s own members prayed and conducted their studies, he reaffirms the tradition of considering the institution founded on January 25, 1554, on the Piratininga plateau at the confluence of the Tamanduateí River and the Anhangabaú stream, as the College of São Paulo. As Custódio and Hilsdorf (1995) have shown, this designation referred more to the notion of a Jesuit residence than to an educational institution modeled as the colleges governed by the Ratio Studiorum⁵.

The emphasis on the initiative of the members of the Society of Jesus implies another historical judgment, frequently observed in Fernando de Azevedo’s major work: the erasure of the educational activities of other religious orders established in the colony. The following excerpt is representative of this perception:

ao fim do século XVI contavam-se vinte núcleos de população (cidades, vilas, povoações e aldeamentos), com 100 mil mestiços e índios catequizados e 25 a 30 mil europeus. Como se vê, os esforços didáticos são exclusivamente dos inacianos, que se adaptam admiravelmente às condições materiais do meio e psicológicos dos alunos (Briquet, 1998, p. 228).⁶

Benedictines, Franciscans, and Carmelites are mentioned in Briquet’s writing only - and with limited detail - after 1759, following the expulsion of the Jesuits. Another noteworthy categorization advanced by Briquet, which, in truth, originates from Carlos da Silveira, should also be noted. This concerns the division of the colonial period analysis by centuries and their respective qualifications, seen as the chief representatives of an era, embodying the spirit of their time: the sixteenth century is characterized as the century of Anchieta; and the seventeenth as that of Nassau (for Briquet, the significant event of the seventeenth century was the Dutch invasion of what is now northeastern Brazil. More than a mere military incursion, the Dutch presence in Portuguese America would have contributed substantially to the unique dissemination of a scientific mentality within the conquered territories.).

The neglect by the metropolis regarding the promotion of education in the colony is well reflected, according to Briquet, in the recognition of the absence of direct governmental intervention in the creation and maintenance of educational establishments. The first official metropolitan actions with an instructional character would only occur in 1699, materialized in the establishment of an artillery and military architecture class in Bahia and another in São Luís, Maranhão. As indicated earlier, Briquet identifies initiatives in the educational field by other religious orders, besides the Jesuits, only after their expulsion by decree of the Marquis of Pombal in 1759. Nevertheless, and in line with Moreira de Azevedo’s reasoning, these other religious orders would not have achieved the same level of advancement in terms of method, teaching, and regularity as the Jesuits. Another paradoxical observation is that, although Briquet marks the Pombaline reforms as a watershed in the periodization of the history of Brazilian education, he does not engage in an exhaustive analysis of them. Rather succinctly, he addresses only superficially the establishment and (limited) scope of the literary subsidy created by Pombal⁷ in 1772, as well as the creation of the royal classes in the same year.

Briquet frames his assessment regarding the state reached by education during the colonial period in the following terms:

• a) pela indiferença completa da metrópole em relação à vida espiritual do Brasil, indiferença talvez escusável se se atender ao fato de que o ensino público em Portugal só foi objeto de cogitação séria do governo, por parte de Pombal, no fim do século XVIII - toda a diligência instrutiva, até então, se resumiu a algumas aulas de fortificações;

• b) pela ação dos jesuítas (no ensino primário e secundário);

• c) pela criação das aulas régias, que não obedeciam a nenhum plano preestabelecido - esparsas e avulsas (filosofia, retórica etc.) elas mais constituíram o remate que as bases de uma educação pública;

• d) por fim, pelo desenvolvimento do ensino religioso com a fundação dos seminários (Briquet, 1998, p. 230)⁸.

For Briquet, the colonial period concludes with the arrival of the royal family in Brazil in 1808. This date, among other circumstances, becomes a landmark in the field of education, as it represents a cultural surge in Portuguese America - a sort of “new era” - in which a series of advancements (the emergence of the press, the establishment of the National Library, the founding of the Botanical Garden and the Military Academy, the arrival of the French Mission, among others) begins to be implemented, elevating the cultural standards of the former colony.

With the proclamation of independence, the author even envisions the possibility of extending the advances initiated in 1808; however, due to the discontinuity of the work of the parliamentary commission responsible for public instruction during the debates of the Constituent Assembly in 1823, and especially as a result of the decentralizing spirit enshrined by the Additional Act of 1834, primary education - entrusted to the responsibility of the provinces and left outside the investments of the central government in the sector - thereafter languished in a state of profound lethargy, if not outright regression.

In general terms, Briquet’s conclusion regarding the development of education during the period of independent Brazil can be summarized as follows: During the reigns of Dom João VI and Dom Pedro I, primary and secondary education were the levels most adversely affected by a lack of governmental investment, for, “even as higher education institutions were established, there was no concern for consolidating them upon the foundation of robust primary and secondary education”⁹. Throughout the Second Empire, in accordance with his assessment, what stands out to the researcher who delves into the reality faced by education is:

• a) The absence of a national education plan (there was no articulation among the various levels of schooling);

• b) The administrative discontinuity (there was no continuity of actions from one ministerial cabinet to its successor);

• c) The scarcity of investments in education, especially at the primary and secondary levels;

• d) The asynchrony between the legislative and executive branches;

• e) The insufficiency of primary education, both in terms of service network and the material conditions in which the teaching-learning process took place, the training of teachers, and its curricular program;

• f) Finally, the premature implementation of freedom of instruction established by the Leôncio de Carvalho Reform of 1879, for, according to Briquet, although this principle is essentially positive, freedom of instruction - so that it may yield practical results - depends “on the criteria and timing of its application, on the conditions of culture and the intellectual development of the people”¹⁰. The flaw of the 1879 Reform, therefore, would be its anticipation of social demand.

Manuel Bergström Lourenço Filho, the second researcher to author the entry on the topic of Education, when addressing the republican era (1889-1941), to some extent echoes several of the criticisms articulated by Raul Briquet regarding the education system practiced during the colonial and imperial periods of Brazil: the absence of a central body (such as the Ministry of Education and Health created with the rise of Getúlio Vargas to power in 1930) specifically dedicated to the management of education; lack of articulation among the various levels of schooling; extremely low enrollment rates per inhabitant and high illiteracy rates, among others.

Nevertheless, as can be observed below - perhaps more explicitly than in Briquet’s case - Lourenço Filho’s diagnosis aligns more consistently with his position within the bureaucracy of the Estado Novo¹¹, as well as with a deliberate attitude shared by numerous other education “specialists” of that era, aimed at establishing new parameters for framing and resolving educational problems. This process entailed a re-periodization of the history of Brazilian education, and Lourenço Filho’s discourse-supported by a practice long nourished by the principles of the New School movement, especially through the role then attributed to psychology in addressing educational issues-was particularly directed towards ratifying the perspective and the new horizons unfurled by those who became known as the “technicians of education.”

Lourenço Filho explained the stage of development of education in the country as a result of the particularities of the national historical process. Marked by a certain “Americanophilia,” the essayist believed that “the country’s historical formation could not have given the people the awareness of the educational problem, as occurred, for example, in the United States”¹². Critical of the approach taken by successive republican governments regarding the educational issue, Lourenço Filho would identify some renewal in Brazilian pedagogical thought only with the actions of the reformers of the 1920s - a group to which he himself belonged. In a certain way, following a distinct prescription from some of these reformers - especially when compared to Fernando de Azevedo-within the context of the Estado Novo, Lourenço Filho, despite acknowledging the persistence of shortcomings and imperfections in the educational system at that time (early 1940s), will defend the notion that only through the updating/acceleration of the Brazilian historical process promoted since 1930 by the Vargas government could such deficiencies and imperfections be overcome. The year 1930, therefore, comes to be regarded as the great landmark not only in the history of education but also in the broader history of the country. Heralding the conciliation between the reformist proposals of the New School movement and the authoritarian project of the Estado Novo, Lourenço Filho, regarding the status attained by education in 1941, asserts:

o desenvolvimento dos serviços do ministério tem-se operado no sentido da melhor articulação das instituições de educação escolar e de cultura geral, tendo em vista a aplicação da moderna técnica administrativa e os objetivos nacionais (...) Tal progresso, sem precedentes em iguais períodos anteriores, torna o atual momento um dos mais interessantes e sugestivos da história da educação do país¹³ (Lourenço Filho, 1998, p. 244-5).

Moreover, it remains a challenge to reflect on the relationship established between the scientific diagnoses of the two researchers portrayed, their involvement with the broader community of intellectuals - both national and international - dedicated to Brazilian studies, and their ties to institutions and centers of power.

Concluding remarks

In light of the arguments presented, it is noted that the importance of the Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies transcended mere bibliographic cataloguing, establishing itself as a critical tool for understanding the evolution of intellectual production on Brazil. It can be affirmed that it constituted one of the foundational references in the documentation and systematization of knowledge about Brazil, having been conceived as a detailed repository of the main works on the country, encompassing a wide array of disciplines and consolidating itself as a substantive source for both national and international researchers. It was, perceptibly, a remarkable endeavor both for its breadth and for its analytical depth. Its role in documenting and disseminating Brazilian intellectual production proved unique, additionally standing out for its contribution to the internationalization of studies on Brazil.

Specifically regarding the entry on Education, it incorporates an analytical perspective on intellectual production within the educational field. The writing is structured so as to precisely catalogue works and to emphasize the authority of the referenced sources. The approach adopts an encyclopedic tone, prioritizing the thematic organization of references and the valorization of major educational narratives, often centered on institutional reforms, legislation, the role of the State, and the activities of subjects with a certain degree of protagonism in interventions within the educational domain.

Despite the adherence of both Raul Briquet and Lourenço Filho to the New School movement, the division of the entry into two parts reflects distinct approaches in both style and theoretical repertoire. The first part is characterized by a more chronological and descriptive approach, with a strong emphasis on documentary exploration, particularly regarding the principal institutional milestones. The style is analytical and systematic, presenting the developments of education in Brazil through the examination of the main bibliographic works. The second part, in turn, presents a more interpretative approach to the educational past, highlighting theoretical and methodological debates concerning Brazilian education. At this point, the writing becomes less descriptive, addressing pedagogical issues and different theoretical currents that shaped the country’s educational framework. The theoretical repertoire expands, including authors associated with educational psychology and the sociology of education, as well as national and international references linked to the New School movement, which help to nuance the historical and educational experience in Brazil.

References

• ANTUNES, Cristina. Rubens Borba de Moraes: anotações de um bibliófilo. São Paulo: Biblioteca Brasiliana Guita e José Mindlin, 2017.
• BRIQUET, Raul. História da educação: evolução do pensamento educacional. São Paulo: Renascença, 1946.
• BRIQUET, Raul. Educação (De 1500 a 1889) - Brasil-Colônia - Brasil-Reino - Brasil-Império. In: MORAES, Rubens Borba de; BERRIEN, William (dir.). Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros, 1º Volume. Brasília: Senado Federal, 1998. p. 225-238.
• CUSTÓDIO, Maria Aparecida; HILSDORF, Maria Lúcia S. O colégio dos jesuítas de São Paulo (que não era colégio nem se chamava São Paulo). Revista do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros (USP), n. 39, p. 169-180, 1995. Disponível em: https://repositorio.usp.br/item/000906928 Acesso em: 17 nov. 2025.
  » https://repositorio.usp.br/item/000906928
• LOURENÇO FILHO, Manuel Bergström. Educação (De 1889 a 1941) - Brasil-República. In: MORAES, Rubens Borba de; BERRIEN, William (dir.). Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros, 1º Volume. Brasília: Senado Federal, 1998. p. 239-250.
• MONARCHA, Carlos (org.). Centenário de Lourenço Filho: 1897-1997. Londrina: EDUEL, 1997.
• MORAES, Rubens Borba de; BERRIEN, William (dir.). Manual Bibliográfico de Estudos Brasileiros. Brasília: Senado Federal, 1998.

• Support or funding:
  Not applicable.
• Availability of research data:
  All data were generated/analyzed in the present article.
• How to cite this article:
  MENEZES, Roni Cleber Dias de. An Interpretation of the History of Brazilian Education: The Bibliographic Manual of Brazilian Studies (1949), Educar em Revista, Curitiba, v. 42, e99275, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0411.99275-T
• 1
  Free translation: “(...) every effort was made to ensure maximum uniformity for the chapters (...). The standards followed in the indexing of proper names are those established in recent years by specialists in Librarianship in Brazil (Municipal Library of São Paulo) (...). Such a measure may unsettle readers, both in Brazil and abroad, who are accustomed to the routine that has persisted on this subject for over a century”.
• 2
  Free translation: “We sincerely wish for a free critique of our initiative to produce a general guide to Brazilian studies, containing suggestions for future work, since we fully understand that the Manual is far from being exempt from the imperfections that typically characterize first undertakings. Nevertheless, it has been our intention to present a comprehensive and reliable introduction to the field of Brazilian studies. (...) Its authors (the scholars who are willing to continue the research presented in the 1949 compendium) will thus find in the present Manual a starting point, benefiting from the criticism it has elicited”.
• 3
  Free translation of the passage from Portuguese: “satisfazendo plenamente para um juízo de conjunto do ensino público na época colonial, põe em evidência o descaso da metrópole pela vida espiritual do Brasil” (Briquet, 1998, p. 254).
• 4
  Free translation of the passage from Portuguese: “a alma da catequese em São Paulo foi Anchieta, inexcedível em zelo de apóstolo e mestre-escola” (Briquet, 1998, p. 227).
• 5
  Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Iesu. Published in 1599, it refers to the set of pedagogical rules and principles that structured not only the curriculum, but also the roles of individuals and the very organization of the Jesuit colleges.
• 6
  Free translation: “By the end of the sixteenth century, there were twenty population centers (cities, towns, settlements, and villages), with 100,000 catechized mestizos and Indigenous people, and 25,000 to 30,000 Europeans. As can be seen, educational efforts were exclusively the work of the Jesuits, who adapted admirably to the material conditions of the environment and the psychological characteristics of their students”.
• 7
  Tax on the commercialization of fresh meat and vinegar (in the Kingdom) or dried meat and aguardente (in Portuguese America) intended to cover expenses related to public instruction, especially the salaries of teachers, who thus became employees of the Portuguese State.
• 8
  Free translation: “a) due to the complete indifference of the metropolis toward the spiritual life of Brazil—an indifference perhaps excusable if one considers that public education in Portugal only became the subject of serious governmental concern with Pombal, at the end of the eighteenth century. Until then, all instructional efforts had been limited to a few classes in fortifications; b) through the actions of the Jesuits (in primary and secondary education); c) by the establishment of royal classes, which did not follow any predetermined plan — scattered and isolated (philosophy, rhetoric, etc.), these served more as a finishing touch than as the foundation for public education; d) finally, through the development of religious education with the founding of seminaries.”
• 9
  Free translation of the passage from Portuguese: “se escolas de grau superior foram criadas, não se cuidou de cimentá-las sobre o sólido ensino primário e secundário” (Briquet, 1998, p. 233).
• 10
  Free translation of the passage from Portuguese: “do critério e da oportunidade de aplicação, das condições de cultura e do desenvolvimento intelectual do povo” (Briquet, 1998, p. 236).
• 11
  Lourenço Filho served as cabinet secretary to Minister of Education Gustavo Capanema, as director of the National Institute for Educational Research (INEP), and as a member of the Federal Education Council during the distinctly authoritarian phase of the so-called “Vargas Era.”
• 12
  Free translation of the passage from Portuguese: “a formação histórica do país não poderia ter dado ao povo a consciência do problema educacional, como ocorreu, por exemplo, nos Estados Unidos” (Lourenço Filho, 1998, p. 241).
• 13
  Free translation: “the development of the ministry’s services has progressed toward better articulation of educational and general cultural institutions, in view of the application of modern administrative techniques and advancing national objectives (...) Such progress, unprecedented in previous periods, makes the present moment one of the most interesting and suggestive in the history of education in the country”.

• Responsible editor - Editor-in-chief:
  Angela Scalabrin Coutinho.

Data availability

All data were generated/analyzed in the present article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 Feb 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  31 Mar 2025
• Accepted
  25 May 2025